Will my AM4 motherboard support Zen 3 and Ryzen 4th Gen?
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
gijoe50000
New member
I upgraded to Ryzen before Christmas and decided to splash out on the Mobo and skimp on the cpu, with the intention of upgrading the cpu only when the 4000 series launches. I went with a 3600 and an X570 Tuf. Kind of glad I did now.
I was thinking about going with a 400 series board, and a 3700(x), but I really hate swapping out, and trying to sell, old motherboards.
I was thinking about going with a 400 series board, and a 3700(x), but I really hate swapping out, and trying to sell, old motherboards.
Dark NighT
New member
Having bought a x470 last year with a 3700x im not fussed about this, if i need an upgrade i can slip in a 3900x or 3950x and be set for a while, this board's vrm certainly can handle one.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I'm so glad I didn't buy a B450 motherboard. That was the common recommendation for a long while so I wouldn't be surprised if a few people are quite frustrated by this.
Despite the image, ASUS says my X370 will work with all 3000 series CPUs, glad that I've got such a good upgrade path available. Up to a 16 core CPU or just a beefier 8 core than I've already got.
Meanwhile in the world of userbenchmark, 3700x and 3800x are ranked identically.
Meanwhile in the world of userbenchmark, 3700x and 3800x are ranked identically.
WYP
News Guru
Technically speaking, 300-series motherboards with Ryzen 3000 support only feature beta support. Basically, 300-series motherboard makers are not obligated to support it.
Bristol Ridge, Excavator on AM4, had to be dropped on 300-series boards to give enough space for Ryzen 3000. Thankfully, that part wasn't popular in the enthusiast space, so motherboard makers could drop it without a backlash.
AlienALX
Well-known member
I don't see what they have to be frustrated about, tbh.
If AMD had released an 8 core model and down on 3000? yes, that would be irritating. However, you have the 3900 (yes it exists if you can find one) the 3900x (currently £380 but will drop no doubt) and the 3950x.
I mean really, since when was the 3950x not good enough for absolutely everything?
What would make me feel a little more at ease is how AMD don't just drop previous gen CPUs overnight (cough Intel cough) and they do drastically reduce the prices as time moves on. So you can expect the 3900x at least to become affordable at some point in the future. The 3950x? possibly not, given the way it is made (binned, best dies they have etc).
But yeah, it's hardly like you are going to be stuck is it? You can go all the way from 2/4 to 16/32 on B450 providing you didn't buy the biggest POS board (in which case you shouldn't be complaining any way IMO).
The best one ATM is the 3900. It's super low wattage, and supports PBO. So it will go nearly as fast as a 3900x. The tricky part is finding them (as they are OEM only) but yeah, I would imagine at some point those too will be sold off by companies like OCUK as tray OEM CPUs (they do a lot of Intel stuff like that).
WYP
News Guru
AMD's support has always been a little strange. AM2+ supported many AM3 processors, some AM3 boards supported AM3+ CPUs etc etc.
AlienALX
Well-known member
No AM2+ boards supported AM3 CPUs. It was confusing, but all AM2+ CPUs (note +, not AM2) had DDR2 and DDR3 memory controllers on them. AM3 CPUs did not.
They overlapped a couple of models (the 955 was the last, IIRC) but my 940 supported both. It was only later they removed the controller and released DDR3 only AM3 CPUs (Phenom 2s).
Yeah it is confusing, which is why they are doing what they are now. It's not just confusing for us it's a nightmare for board makers. Mostly because in some instances lots of the boards out there do not have a big enough BIOS ROM and thus Asrock has had to release several BIOS files for one board, each supporting different sets of CPUs.
I think Asus will be the first to ditch trying. They've always been that way, done as little as they had to. It's why a lot of their other stuff (like £200 wifi cards from the past etc) don't work in Win 10. I mean look how long it took them to get their sound cards working in Win 10.
Gigabyte are usually quite good, so I won't write them off just yet, but Asrock have always been the best. Their boards support anything that will physically fit, barring the new TR chips in older boards.
As I have pointed out though it's not like they have left many with nowhere to go. I doubt many people put a 3900x or 3950x in a B450 board unless it was ITX.
looz
Active member
What I do not get is that why didn't they mandate or at least strongly advice for larger BIOS chips? I wouldn't think NVRAM is prohibitively expensive nowadays, and needing a lot of microcode for a platform marketed as long lasting doesn't sound unthinkable. Obviously we now have the power of hindsight but would have removed some of the headaches.
Then again the alternative is Intel approach of hard boundaries with no reason other than lack of consumer confusion - Z series chipsets have been modded to support "unsupported" CPUs with no issues, but they just block it in software when possible.
Similar case in Free vs. G-Sync, where when paying the premium for G-Sync you always get a good display, but you're also essentially paying for the logo. But FreeSync's approach of having a wild west of sync displays and then FreeSync 2 for the known good ones is much better.
But corporations will be corporations and ones on the top can afford to be anti-consumer, while the underdog will be friendlier as public perception is imperative. Not many would have bought FX CPUs on merits alone.
Then again the alternative is Intel approach of hard boundaries with no reason other than lack of consumer confusion - Z series chipsets have been modded to support "unsupported" CPUs with no issues, but they just block it in software when possible.
Similar case in Free vs. G-Sync, where when paying the premium for G-Sync you always get a good display, but you're also essentially paying for the logo. But FreeSync's approach of having a wild west of sync displays and then FreeSync 2 for the known good ones is much better.
But corporations will be corporations and ones on the top can afford to be anti-consumer, while the underdog will be friendlier as public perception is imperative. Not many would have bought FX CPUs on merits alone.
WYP
News Guru
You're wrong about that. So long as the board had the right BIOS and supported 125W CPUs, AM2+ could support AMD's Phenom 2 1090T as it did support DDR2. This also applied to lower-end AM3 models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_AM2
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/A... Edition - HDT90ZFBK6DGR (HDT90ZFBGRBOX).html
Some early Phenom II CPUs only supported DDR2 and were not AM3 compatible.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Very odd. Seems I must be getting confused somewhere.
I could have sworn that the reason I got rid of my AM2+ board and 940 was because the 950 and newer all needed DDR3. Maybe I'm confusing that with PD?
*various Googling later* Yes, yes I am. It happened between AM3 and AM3+. I must have had a AM3 board and had to get a Crosshair something AM3+ and DDR3.
Edit. It was actually a bit of both
Note there is no listing there at all for the Phenom 2 940. That is because it did not support DDR3. Certain other models did not either, so AMD released two versions. There was a certain model of the 955 that was AM2, and one that supported DDR3.
So yeah, with that said it was all very confusing. Which is why I think their idea isn't a terrible one, tbh.
Oh yeah for clarity, that is the CPU support list for the Crosshair V Formula Z which is what I upgraded to.
Edit again, just to show how confusing it was look at how many SKU there were for the bloody 955 !
I could have sworn that the reason I got rid of my AM2+ board and 940 was because the 950 and newer all needed DDR3. Maybe I'm confusing that with PD?
*various Googling later* Yes, yes I am. It happened between AM3 and AM3+. I must have had a AM3 board and had to get a Crosshair something AM3+ and DDR3.
Edit. It was actually a bit of both
Note there is no listing there at all for the Phenom 2 940. That is because it did not support DDR3. Certain other models did not either, so AMD released two versions. There was a certain model of the 955 that was AM2, and one that supported DDR3.
So yeah, with that said it was all very confusing. Which is why I think their idea isn't a terrible one, tbh.
Oh yeah for clarity, that is the CPU support list for the Crosshair V Formula Z which is what I upgraded to.
Edit again, just to show how confusing it was look at how many SKU there were for the bloody 955 !
Last edited:
Kleptobot
Member
the way i see it AMD managed to support many generations of CPUs on a single socket, they had to draw a line somewhere
This decision mainly affects people who:
- bought a b450/x470 board after zen 2 was available
- planned to upgrade to zen 3 (actually though, not just "i might have wanted to eventually")
i get that there was some misleading information but if you don't fit the criteria above i don't really think you can justify being too irate
This decision mainly affects people who:
- bought a b450/x470 board after zen 2 was available
- planned to upgrade to zen 3 (actually though, not just "i might have wanted to eventually")
i get that there was some misleading information but if you don't fit the criteria above i don't really think you can justify being too irate
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
If motherboard manufacturers actually put more memory onboard for the BIOS it wouldn't be a problem. Not sure why they wouldn't have when AMD announced it's 4 year plan for support through 2020.
To be honest I am not bothered about this.
I have a B350 with a 1700x board in my Plex server, and a B450 with a 2700x in my 2nd machine.
The B350 will work with the 2700x and iirc the B450 will work with a 3000 series CPU.
I have got plenty of upgrade options with those boards and I am happy with that, it's more than Intel offer.
I have a B350 with a 1700x board in my Plex server, and a B450 with a 2700x in my 2nd machine.
The B350 will work with the 2700x and iirc the B450 will work with a 3000 series CPU.
I have got plenty of upgrade options with those boards and I am happy with that, it's more than Intel offer.
WYP
News Guru
Some BIOS' for B350 can support Zen 2. Check with your manufacturer.
Kleptobot
Member
I doubt it's the additional BOM cost of a bios chip with more memory or a lack of foresight of the space requirements of supporting 3+ generations of CPUs.
The additional engineering resources to code for, test and validate all the processors on each chipset is non trivial. Then there is managing release etc. AMD probably just ran out of resources and had to drop features to meet deadlines.
The initial support of Zen 2 in 300 series and 400 series boards was a bit messy, that will only be compounded
